Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'WRITE' label mostly restates structured data. It adds the raw endpoint (POST /cases/) but says nothing about side effects, duplicate handling, required permissions, or what is returned on success.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two terse fragments with the mutation signal front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of return values or permissions, the definition should say at minimum which fields are required and what a successful call yields. None of that is present, so an agent must open the schema to learn the single required field.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60% and the description supplies zero parameter information. The two most important fields, 'title' (the only required one) and 'description', carry no schema description at all, and the description does not compensate by explaining what a case needs to be created successfully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('create') and resource ('a case'), which cleanly separates it from the get/list/update siblings that share the 'case' resource. It does not explicitly contrast with cogmento_create_company/contact/deal, but the resource noun makes the distinction obvious enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to create a case versus using another tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of what must exist beforehand. The 'WRITE:' prefix is the only signal, and that is a mutation marker rather than usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.